More precisely, the Republicans in Congress will repeal the ACA. Their plan is to replace it with something else that keeps the provisions they like, such as coverage for prior conditions and keeping sproggs on their parents' plan until age 26.

The problem for them will be that insurance companies are not going to support keeping those provisions as an unfunded mandate. That means Congress will have to cover the bill. Problem there is that Congress would have raise taxes which they pledged to that moron Grover Norquist they would never do.

A bigger problem will be that insurance companies are in it for themselves, covering people is only something they must do to stay in business. Government pulling back from the ACA means they have their privates hanging out there and so will pull back their plans. Congress figures they have 2-3 years to replace the ACA after they vote to repeal it, but the insurance companies probably won't wait and will start canceling policies early.

The only fix is to find money elsewhere in the budget to keep the wheels on. That will be difficult since they also wish to increase defense spending AND supply the jack needed for a large public infrastructure program, which the U.S. does need. They claim they will find the money elsewhere. But they've already cut discretionary spending quite a bit. Going after mandatory spending means mixing it up with the blue hairs and AARP and would take years.

Congress figures that relaxing regulations and fixing the tax code will increase GDP to such an extent that tax receipts will go up. Yet their plans will decrease tax receipts. During the Kennedy administration when taxes were relatively high, cutting taxes would get a big bang for the buck. Now it will only supply a whimper. Decrease regulations is all wonderful except that ignoring regulation and not properly regulating led to the last recession. And companies are not complaining about regulation except polluting companies. Relaxing regs on them means increased costs for the resulting pollution.

If the Republicans are correct and 95% of climate scientists are in on the global warming scam, then a bit more pollution won't matter. However, if they are wrong, then there will be increasing costs (regardless of deregulation) for droughts, stronger storms, etc.

And then there is the Black Swans out there. One really big national disaster, say a big California earthquake, means their budget projections will be very wrong very fast.

I agree, though even with the Theresa May et. al. view of accepting the referendum results there are problems they're glossing over - Leave only won by 1.8%, but it's not clear that they can show all 51.8% prioritise immigration as their reasons for leaving, when prominent Leavers like Daniel Hannan say immigration wasn't the reason he wanted to leave I think it's entirely dishonest to make the case that immigration reform has to become before all else, even if we leave there's no evidence that a majority support leaving and screwing ourselves based primarily on immigration changes.

But this is why parliamentary scrutiny is of fundamental importance, to challenge the idea that a vote to Leave in the referendum is a vote for Theresa May's cabinet to be the sole decider of what shape that takes even if that completely defies the democratic will of the populace.

Even if you ran the referendum again, and even if Leave won again, which I suspect they wouldn't, I do not for one second believe you'd ever get a majority supporting exiting the European Economic Area even if we leave the EU, and yet that's exactly what they're proposing despite there being not even remotely near a majority for it. A substantial number of even the hardest Brexit voters still support the idea of remaining in the common market.

Thus May's government simply cannot keep claiming they have a democratic mandate, they were given a mandate for one thing and one thing only - leaving the EU, they have no mandate to decide anything else beyond that regarding immigration, access to markets and so on and so forth. Democracy is also not a one time thing, so I also absolutely agree that any package should be put to the people in a second referendum with the option of rejecting it and staying in the EU - democracy is about giving people choice to decide, and people's views change. It's not democracy if you refuse to recognise that change, otherwise we could merely declare the referendum result invalid because people previously voted to join in 1972, if singular votes define things for all eternity then why not that one? The whole argument against a second referendum is fundamentally democracy denying, despite the argument they make that it's a refusal to accept the will of the people - finding out the will of the people on a rolling basis by definition cannot be classed as refusing the will of the people.

These companies have the potential to make billions with only a handful of employees. That's where the ruling class is putting all their chips. They're trying to find ways to make a ton of money without all those pesky employees getting in the way with their wages and benefits and pensions. When one out of a hundred of these companies takes off it pays for all the rest of the failures (which are tax write offs anyway)

Trump...business savvy? Errrr...3 or 4 bankruptcies, no U.S. bank will loan to that deadbeat, the word in business is to get your money up front if you deal with Trump. I think the appellation Sgt. Bilko is more apt.

This is one of the reasons micro kernels have a much more manageable security model. The problem being microkernels have some performance penalties that, at least in previous generations of CPUs, lead most OS developers to work in monolithic or mixed models. Yes, there are user space device drivers, so there has been a lot of work done to move device drivers a lot further away from Ring 0 and Ring 1, but even this simply makes monolithic kernels even more complex, and complexity is always the enemy of security.

The kinds of vulnerabilities that PowerShell suffers would be suffered by any operating system that has a fairly comprehensive scripting language. The issue simply is if you can automate OS functions like creating, altering or deleting files and other system resources, someone can write a malicious script that, if run even in an non-super user context, can wreak havoc, but if run in a super user or similar higher access context can lead to enormous damage or to compromised systems. There are ways to mitigate this for both Windows and *nix, but more often than not you have to be proactive about it.

In assessing the 2004 tax holiday, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reports that most of the largest beneficiaries of the holiday actually cut jobs in 2005-06 - despite overall economy-wide job growth in those years - and many used the repatriated funds simply to repurchase stock or pay dividends.

About 92 percent of it went to shareholders, mostly in the form of increased share buybacks and the rest through increased dividends.

In other words, no help to the economy.

2) whoever does it will be crucified for being easy on big business income taxes

Which Bush was but then again, this was the same guy who handed over $700 billion of taxpayer money to banks and Wall Street firms so they could pay out their bonuses. Obviously he didn't care about being crucified or what the people thought. It wasn't his money.